Com-Central.net

Neil_Baumgardner

Sherman,
Actually I dont know where military museum funding is "usually." This is the first time, since I've been tracking the subject, that Army museums have moved - I think its certainly the most significant change in the Army museum system in 30 years, if not 60 years. In the past they didnt move, and a new one was built only every several decades... Only possible frame of reference I have is the last Ordnance Museum building effort in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There was an effort then to get everything undercover, but the military was very unpopular due to the Vietnam War - whether they couldnt get funding from the government, or raise enough privately, the Ordnance Museum only got a small building at APG. Often, such as the new Marine Corps Museum, the funds are raised privately. But this is a case where the museums have been uprooted because of BRAC - and in two out of three cases from fairly good existing museum facilities - and forced to move elsewhere, so this is also very different in that regard.

In this specific instance, the museum funding is located in the Military Construction and Veterans Bill - not in the Defense Appropriations Bill. But caught up in the broader Appropriations for _all_ departments. Right now the House Appropriations Committee doesnt want to pass new FY11 Appropriations for any department, but simply fund the government through continuing resolutions that would continue the FY10 spending levels (with no funding for new FY11 projects like the museums and a raft of other projects).

ShermanWasRight

Is military museum funding usually part of defense spending, or is it presented separately? If it's the former, at least I can mildly understand it (although it's still missing the point), and if it's presented separately, it's entirely missing the point...

edit: I just want to say, this thread is reminding me of one of the reasons why I like this board: Polite discussion about political issues, free of hyperbole. On a certain warbird board I also post on, things tend to be the exact opposite.

Neil_Baumgardner

Fyi, some of the political background on this proposal: The House Appropriations Committee is proposing another continuing resolution to cover the remaining seven months of FY11 - instead of actually passing an FY11 appropriations bill. This is why the museum funding - among $100 billion in other projects would be cut. The museum funding is only in the President's FY11 request (it doesn't look like any funding was requested for FY12).

So unfortunately right now the museums are being held hostage to this bigger political game. Obama said he would veto the House Appropriations proposal, and anything will have to pass both the Republican House and Democratic Senate. There is some possibility they could just keep passing continuing resolutions and not pass an actual FY11 spending bill, but from what I understand that would be fairly unprecedented. Like i said, this is just the first salvo.

the_shadock

- Kurt_Laughlin

To be honest, if the choice was between providing free daycare for the children of soldiers; or free internet connections so the deployed could talk with their families more often; or putting the cheapest possible roof over my favorite tanks; I would let the tanks rust.

Kurt,

I don't think it's a problem of choosing between a better "soldiercare" and a better "old-tanks-care". For me, money was already spent (wasted?) to restore some of the tanks, to move them from Knox to Benning and from Aberdeen to Lee, and now everything is stopped.

It's just like starting to build a house and not having the money to build the roof. The weather will damage the interior and walls of the house. In this case, it would have been better not to build the house at all.

Moreover, the tanks can't be viewed by the public, so everyone has something to loose with this situation. Better not having done anything or having done the whole thing... not just the half of it.

P-O

blackdog · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 11, 2010 Posts: 58

Sounds like someone put the cart before the horse...

C_Sherman · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 590

- Neil_Baumgardner

See page 17
republicans.appropriat...lution.pdf
"Reduction of museum operations support building - (74.8)"

Compare to comptroller.defense.go...011_c1.pdf page 356 - that's all funding for Fort Benning, Lee and Sill...

Neil

Hi,

Told ya s....nah, too easy. But this was pretty predictable.

And I wouldn't hold much hope for anyone bothering to protect the restored vehicles. They are just pawns in the funding games, and if they deteriorate it makes them more valuable as evidence of how badly funding is needed. This is about money and the power it represents...politics at it's finest. If you convince Congress to give you money, you gain power. It's messed up, but it's the way it is.

And don't mention Kubinka. It's that way because of exactly the same reasons, and it gave someone some sort of power or status to build it the way it is. Sadly, this is true of most museums owned and operated by a civil government. If they take money from a national funding source, they are subject to the same rules.

C

Kurt_Laughlin · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 577

To be honest, if the choice was between providing free daycare for the children of soldiers; or free internet connections so the deployed could talk with their families more often; or putting the cheapest possible roof over my favorite tanks; I would let the tanks rust.

I realize that it's not that simple, and there are undoubtedly wasteful or frivolous expenses that *aren't* being cut, but when there is only so much money, museums and so forth are a ways down the list from supporting the warfighters.

KL

armyjunk2 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 1416

These don't look high dollar to me, but work perfect for the purpose...Rant, Rant...

armyjunk2 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 1416

again if the Army can't or won't build facilities why not give vehicles to someone that will. I don't get it I guess.. I know its far more complicated than I'm making it, I just hate seeing them rust away. I'm just ranting...

I hope the new ceiling in building 7 helps with the photo taking at kubinka.

Dontos

- bsmart

Bovington also charges admission, something the U.S. Museums are not allowed to do. And remember the Army isn't building museums they are building storage facilities

Bob

I believe the term is Institutional Support Instructional Storage Facility...(!!??)

Rolling Eyes

Don

bsmart

Bovington also charges admission, something the U.S. Museums are not allowed to do. And remember the Army isn't building museums they are building storage facilities Rolling Eyes

TrevorLarkum

Most of Bovington's money comes from the National Lottery - I don't know if there's a US equivalent. This year they're planning a 40,000 sq ft storage building with workshop and conservation facility. It's designed to hold 120 vehicles, and be accessible to the public.

the_shadock

- armyjunk2

I would add Kubinka is one great Museum and the fact they have older buildings I don't think anyone notices or cares....Displaying the vehicles is the point

Here you can see that even Kubinka spends some money to have more comfortable and beautiful buildings :

P-O

armyjunk2 · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Sep 22, 2006 Posts: 1416

I wonder how much the Russians/French/British spend to have the best Armor Museums in the world? Fort Knox and other bases have millions of dollars in new buildings going up right now. It seems here in the states if we can't spend a Kzillion dollars on the structure we are incapable of displaying the armor. If the US Army can't do it maybe they should give them away to folks that can. I would add Kubinka is one great Museum and the fact they have older buildings I don't think anyone notices or cares....Displaying the vehicles is the point

vagabond

Any chance of getting some funding from Kuwait? Seriously - I read about the Tank Museum @ Bovington getting 1.5 Million Pounds in recognition of the Royal Armoured Corps in the liberation of Kuwait.

www.tankmuseum.org/ixb...XMENU_=top

I seem to remember that some M1 Abrahms were involved in that as well Smile

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big